Back to Basics
Understanding
Steam Traps
James R. Risko
TLV Corp.
team traps and steam systems represent a large portion of a manufacturing plants total operating cost,
but methods to reduce spending in this area are not
clearly defined. Problems may arise when engineers lack
knowledge regarding such questions as: How do steam
traps affect the steam system and process and product quality? What are the best types of traps to use? What differentiates the best manufacturers? What testing methods are
used for determining trap failures?
The many considerations involved in selecting, installing, and maintaining steam traps can make it difficult
21
Back to Basics
Table 1. Selecting steam traps with low functional steam loss rates can save a plant a significant amount of money.
Steam Trap
Model
Steam Trap A
FSL,
lb/h
0.1
$9
$36,000
$0
Steam Trap B
1.2
$105
$420,000
$384,000
Steam Trap C
3.1
$272
$1,088,000
$1,052,000
Notes: Examples are for illustration only and do not refer to any particular steam trap. FSL is determined according to
ISO 7841 (2).
steam costs. A plant that has 4,000 steam traps of the Trap
A design would require $36,000 of steam due to FSL per
year, while 4,000 Trap C traps would require $1,088,000
per year. This represents a $1,052,000 difference.
Some manufacturers may report zero steam loss. Is
a claim of zero steam loss a myth or fact, and is this an
important factor to consider?
A high FSL can represent a sizeable portion of the total
steam loss, significantly impacting cost. Thus, if a claim
of zero steam loss for a certain trap is accurate, a major
contributor to the total system cost is eliminated.
However, such claims of zero steam loss may be
based on a manufacturers internal testing methods rather
than internationally recognized standards. Some internal
methods might employ condensate loads during testing that
are much higher than those handled by a typical steam trap
during normal service.
Universally accepted methods of obtaining FSL data
are described in two standards, Determination of Steam
Loss (ISO 7841) (2) and Steam Traps (ASME PTC
39) (3). These standards provide useful information for
measuring the amount of FSL from traps operating within
normal specification parameters.
A claim of zero FSL may not be relevant if it is not
based on a standard test method, or if the testing apparatus was not sophisticated enough to perform the testing required by the standard. When evaluating FSL data,
review the scientific methods used to obtain the data,
particularly the quality of the measurement apparatus, inde-
22
Table 3. When failed steam traps are not repaired, they can deteriorate to a blowing condition
and continue to lose steam (worst-case scenario). Repairing the failed steam traps promptly
will save money by mitigating steam loss in Years 24 (repair scenario).
Steam Trap Model
and Condition
FSL*
XSL*
FSL + XSL*
Cost of
Steam Trap Survey
Worst-Case Scenario: No maintenance occurs on failed traps for 4 yr. Steam Trap B develops a small leak in Year 1, which worsens to
blowing conditions in Years 24.
Steam Trap A
$35
$0
$35
$80
Base Case
(not failed)
$420
$9,010
$9,430
$80
$8,395
$1,086
$11,213
$11,213
$80
$10,598
Good
Steam Trap B
Failed, Small Leak
Steam Trap C
Failed, Blowing
Repair Scenario: When a trap is already leaking steam, FSL is not considered. Thus, since Trap B is leaking in Year 1, FSL is not added.
In Year 2, the trap is repaired and FSL is added for Years 24. Steam Traps B and C leak in Year 1, so FSL is added to the cost for only
Years 24.
Steam Trap A
$35
$0
$35
$80
Base Case
(not failed)
$420
$600
$915
$80
$300
$1,086
$2,803
$3,618
$80
$3,003
Good
Steam Trap B
Failed, Small Leak
Steam Trap C
Failed, Blowing
* FSL and XSL are calculated based on a steam cost of $10/1,000 lb.
23
Back to Basics
Maintenance considerations
Performing an annual physical plant examination is
essential to understanding the plants health. This exam
should include a survey of all the steam traps to determine
the failure state of the population (also sometimes called
failure rate, although rate should imply a time period).
Until all failed steam traps are repaired or replaced, it is
reasonable to expect 25% of a plants steam trap population to be in a failure state at a site that has traps with a life
expectancy of 4 yr.
It is important to understand the difference between
annualized failure rate the number of steam trap failures
in one year as a percentage of the total population and
failure state which describes the current populations
health. The annualized failure rate provides useful reliability information, and an indication of the life expectancy
of various steam traps. Failure state correlates directly to a
sites dedication to maintaining its steam trap population,
and provides quantified estimates that can be useful for
identifying cost-reduction opportunities.
Reliability and trap life
Asking a trap manufacturer or a distributor to estimate steam trap life expectancy might not yield the most
accurate information. Although manufacturers will provide
their best estimates, the plants own data because they
are based on a large, diverse trap population are a better
source of reliability information. However, obtaining these
data requires a consistent effort to conduct an annual sur-
25
Back to Basics
Condensate
Subcooling Amount
Utility/Distribution Steam
Small
Heating, Ventilating,
and Air Conditioning
Small to Large
Rotating Equipment
Small to Large
Process Equipment
Small to Large
High-Temperature Tracing
Very Small
Low-Temperature Tracing
Very Small
Long Trail
Large Amount
James R. Risko, CEM, is the president of TLV Corp. (13901 South Lakes Dr.,
Charlotte, NC 28273; Phone: (704) 597-9070; E-mail: risko@TLVengineering.com). The author of more than 25 articles related to steam
systems, he is active in standards writing activities of the Fluid Controls
Institute (FCI), and has previously served as the organizations chairman, standards chair, and chair of the Secondary Pressure and Steam
Trap Sections. He is a dually certified energy manager, by the Association of Energy Engineers and North Caroline State Univ. He holds an
MBA from Wilkes Univ. (Wilkes Barre, PA), and two BS degrees, in
mathematics/education and business administration/accounting, from
Kutztown Univ. (Kutztown, PA).
Literature Cited
1. Risko, J. R., Steam Traps Operating Principles and Types,
Fluid Controls Institute Technical Sheet #ST 107, www.fluid
controlsinstitute.org/pdf/resource/steam/ST107OperatingPrinciplesandTypes.pdf, FCI, Cleveland, OH (April. 2008).
2. International Organization for Standardization, Automatic
Steam Traps Determination of Steam Loss Test Methods,
ISO 7841, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland (1988).
3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Steam Traps,
PCT 39, ASME, New York, NY (2005).
4. Steam Trap Losses What It Costs You, www.tlv.com/
global/US/steam-theory/cost-of-steam-trap-losses.html, TLV Co.,
Ltd., Kakogawa, Japan.
5. Risko, J. R., Effective Drainage of Condensing Equipment,
Fluid Controls Institute, Technical Sheet #ST 106, www.fluidcontrolsinstitute.org/pdf/resource/steam/ST106EffectiveDrainCondensingEquip.pdf, FCI, Cleveland, OH (Feb. 2007).